SECURITY OF THE CROWN

HC Deb 07 April 1848 vol 98 cc20-59

SIR G. GREY said: I deeply regret that the spirit which has recently manifested itself in some parts of the United Kingdom—that the seditious and treasonable designs which have been openly avowed by too many persons, at least in one part of the United Kingdom, encouraging open hostility to the peace of society and the supremacy of the law, and exciting to the subversion of the existing institutions of the country—have rendered it necessary, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, tha we should come to Parliament to ask for an alteration in the law applicable to these extraordinary circumstances. I may as well state at once that there is nothing further from our intentions than to propose to Parliament the adoption of any measure calculated to place the slightest restriction upon the free, full, and indisputable right which the people of this country possess and ought to enjoy of discussing public affairs and deliberating upon every political matter. Still less have I any the most remote thought of proposing anything that should interfere with the undoubted right of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen, to make their wishes known to Parliament, and to petition for the redress of grievances, real or supposed. Those rights have long been enjoyed, and I feel as fully as any man in the country can feel that the legitimate exercise of those rights constitutes the best security for the continued preservation of our institutions—that to those rights we are indebted, under Providence, for those constitutional liberties which we prize so highly, and upon which so much of the greatness and happiness of this country depends—rights which I should be equally forward to defend whether they were invaded by the Crown, or interfered with by demonstrations of violence on the part of those who profess to speak, but who do not truly represent, the sentiments of the people. I have always thought—and I see no reason to change my opinion—that it is owing to the free exercise of those rights that we are enabled to maintain our ground, and occupy that happy position which England at present holds—that England has not bent beneath the storm that has swept over the continent of Europe—has shaken the most powerful and despotic Thrones—and disturbed what were considered the most firmly established institutions in the world. But I think that, in pursuing the course by which we seek to defend that constitutional liberty which the great body of the people throughout the United Kingdom enjoy and appreciate, it will be felt that our efforts are directed to preserve its integrity and promote its continuance. Highly, however, as we may esteem those rights, I doubt not it will be universally felt that the exercise of them has its limits, and that recently those limits have been passed: no man forming the decision of a dispassionate judgment can doubt that those limits have to a very great extent been transgressed; that, under a pretence of discussing grievances, language of the most seditious description has been held; and that the law is, in some respects, insufficient for the repression of proceedings thus dangerous and exciting. I am anxious not to detain the House by reading, in proof of this position, many extracts from newspapers the contents of which are already, I doubt not, well known to the greater portion of the Members of this House, and which are already only too notorious. During the last few weeks there have been held in Ireland several meetings of what is called the "Confederation." At those meetings, as almost every Gentleman in this House must be aware, language has been held avowing designs incompatible with established government—subversive of the whole frame of society—inconsistent with the maintenance of order, and of the institutions of the country—and utterly opposed to the constitutional liberty which we are bound to respect and maintain. I know that Government has been reproached for not having sooner taken notice of these proceedings. It has been said that we ought long since to have availed ourselves of the means which the law had placed within our reach, in order to punish and restrain them. At the same time I am sure the House will agree with me that some discretion must be allowed to those who are entrusted with the executive power of the Government. I can confidently assure the House that the whole of those proceedings were watched with the closest attention by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His first care, however, was to ascertain what effect speeches and writings of the character to which I have referred had upon the minds of the people of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant was at first led to hope that the publications in the newspaper called the United Irishman would be regarded by the great body of the people rather as the ravings of a disordered imagination than as emanating from a sound understanding, capable of having any effect upon the conduct of the people. But, finding sedition from day to day continuing to make rapid advances—seeing that its progress was such as to endanger the peace of society, and to shake the security of established institutions in that part of the United Kingdom" it became the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant that he ought to avail himself of the means which the existing state of the law placed within his reach for the purpose, if possible, of arresting the mischiefs which those proceedings were calculated to produce and were producing throughout Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant then directed the only prosecution which he could direct against the parties who have thus acted; and those presecutions are now pending—with what result it cannot yet be known; but he did all that the law in its present state enabled him to do for the repression of these proceedings. But how was that met? It was not met by any the least intimation of a desire on the part of those persons to act for the future in conformity to the law of the land; on the contrary, it was met by open defiance, and a declaration that, having committed sedition, they would proceed to the commission of high treason. I am not prepared to say that they may not have been guilty of this crime. No one whose attention has been directed to the subject can deny that there is considerable difficulty in drawing a broad and palpable distinction in some cases between sedition and high treason. The line of demarcation is not always very distinct. But in the present case the prosecutions have been instituted for sedition, and under the pending prosecutions, the offenders can only be subjected to the lighter penalty. I believe that many of the persons concerned in this movement in Ireland are persons learned in the law, or, if themselves not learned, that they act under legal advice—that, fortified in their own opinions, or supported by the knowledge and judgment of others, they do not abstain from encouraging the multitude to acts of high treason, though they seem to think that in doing no more than uttering the words of encouragement and excitement they expose themselves to no higher penalties than those which constitute the legal consequences of sedition. But I should not be surprised to find that they are mistaken in their opinion of the law; and that if, in connexion with their exhortations—with the exciting addresses which they are accustomed to deliver—if, in connexion with these, overt acts be committed by other parties, instigated by them, those who thus lead the people to their ruin may find that the law of treason may apply to themselves. Those who have hitherto considered themselves safe as not exceeding the limits of sedition, may thus possibly find themselves amenable to the law of high treason. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that from anything which has yet been done, the parties to whom I have been referring could be prosecuted for any higher offence than that of sedition. The question, therefore, for the House is, whether the present crisis calls for such an alteration in the law as that which I am about to propose. I should wish, if possible, not to weary the House with needless quotations; but there are passages in the United Irishman which clearly indicate an organised plan, not only of sedition, but, more properly speaking, of treason; in which the writer does not merely appeal to the fancies of an imaginative people, but enters into minute details for the purpose of pointing out measures calculated to insure success against the Government—gives instructions how barricades are to be formed— suggests various devices by which the Queen's troops might be defeated, and murdered—how missiles might be hurled upon them from windows and roofs of houses—and avows a design to drive the Lord Lieutenant from the government of Ireland, and, instead of the Queen's authority, to establish an independent republic in Ireland. On the 23rd of March, these are the terms in which Mr. Mitchell addressed at first his hearers and afterwards readers:— I am charged with 'writing seditious articles, having a tendency to inflame the minds of the people, and excite discontent.' I did write seditious articles, and I will write seditious articles. (Loud cheers.) I will incite the people to discontent and disaffection. (Renewed cheering.) I know no reason why they should be content—why they should be well affected—towards the Government of England. (Loud cheers.) On the day this Confederation was formed, I, as you remember, came forward, and declared myself a disaffected subject, and promised to devote myself continually to excite disaffection in others. ('Hear, hear,' and loud cheering.) I think I have kept that promise; and, come what may, I will continue to do so. (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Mitchell then proceeds in these terms:— I am guilty of an attempt to sow disaffection in the minds of the people—I am guilty of an attempt to overthrow this Government, which keeps its footing on our soil by sheer brute force, and by nothing else. (Loud cries of 'Hear, hear.') And this I tell you, that until that Government be thoroughly upset, I shall not cease to write, to speak, to act sedition. One circumstance alone shall stop me in this career—my death. (Loud and enthusiastic cheers.) In their courts of law we shall take issue with them boldly and desperately. If we do not throw them there, we shall throw them on a broader field. (Vehement cheering.) It must be done. The news this morning announces that Vienna is in the hands of the people. (Renewed cheering.) Dublin must be in the hands of the people. (Enthusiastic and deafening cheers.) Stand by us, citizens, and it shall be done. (Cries of 'We will, we will.') In the whole of the language thus held, the more violent the expressions the more vehement the cheers of the audience. Then we have Mr. Reilly coming forward with a proposition for the formation of a National Guard. I do not mean to express an opinion as to the legal effect of the words which that speaker used. I am not prepared to say that they do not go beyond the limits of sedition, or to affirm that they may not constitute a much higher offence. I will read the passage to the House. It will hereafter be the duty of the law officers of the Crown to deal with it as the case may require:— Mr. Devin Reilly then came forward to propose a resolution for the organisation of a National Guard, and in doing so, was vehemently cheered. He said he was satisfied that the country would see in that evening's meeting a good beginning. (Cheers.) It was his high privilege to propose that they should take that evening the initiative step in the broad path of freedom (cheers); to propose the first of a series of steps for which his soul had long hungered, and for the want of which tens of thousands of his murdered countrymen had perished—the formation of an armed National Guard in Ireland. (Loud cheers.) This resolution called on the Council of the Confederation to inquire and report on the best and most effectual means of organising and arming such a body. (Loud cheering.) That was their answer to Lord Clarendon. (Cheers.) For every one of them he might imprison, hundreds would be ready to take their place. For every leader of importance imprisoned, they would arm ten thousand men. (Loud cheers.) For every hour he confined them, they would shorten his rule in Ireland by one hundred days. For every hair of their heads he touched, for every one he hanged—but he would not talk to them of hanging, for if there was sufficient manhood and devotion amongst them, long before things arrived at such a pass they would open the gaols with their pickaxes and crowbars. Long before that day every street of Dublin might be a barricade or a fortress, and every pavement carpeted with blood. (Great applause.) Long before that day they would show the tyrant out of Ireland by the light of the burning gaols. (Cheers.) Before that day every field in Ireland must be fought, every ditch defended, and every river obtain a notorious memory to live throughout future ages. Ay, and if they were driven into the remotest corners of their beloved island, they would make the graves of their murdered countrymen the last resting-ground for the defence of their precious liberties. (Cheers.) If they were to fail, let them nobly fail—if they conquered, they must do so by their own right hands. While they had arms in their hands they might defy the whole world—without them they were at the beck of every petty constable. (Hear.) Four months ago, when the Coercion Bill was introduced, he called on the people in that hall to arm. (Cheers.) Now, he called on them a second time to arm, arm, arm! (Loud cheers.) Had they armed four months ago, they would be four months nearer their liberty that day. Let them arm now; and when they had armed, they would be ready, and not sooner. (Loud cheers.) When they were willing to aid themselves, then God would assist them, and not before. (Cheers.) They had often been told about Ireland's opportunity, and that the time was not yet come. Now he would tell them that no time was opportune to a nation which was not prepared to go out at any moment and assert its rights. (Immense applause.) It was slaves only who waited for opportunities—a nation of brave men should be always prepared. (Cheers.) A great movement of the people was passing over the world. (Cheers.) Democracy had crossed the Alps and entered Austria. Last week he was in Paris, and there was smashed the strongest dynasty in the world. (Loud applause.) He would presently come to Ireland. (Cheers.) 300,000 Englishmen, Chartists, would assemble in London next week, and then they would have London in their hands. ('Hear, hear,' and loud cheers.) I wish the hon. Member for Nottingham had taken the trouble to show Mr. Reilly that in this he was mistaken. [Mr. O'CONNOR: I never read the speech.] Mr. Mitchell proceeds to say— He promised them, as a brother, that whether that time came sooner or later, the first budge in England would be answered in Ireland. (Loud cheers.) Let them wait for that day, and prepare for it, by arming themselves; and, till that day arrived, he had but one advice to give them, and that advice was, to 'put their trust in God and keep their powder dry. I will not read any further extracts from the speeches or the writings of Mr. Mitchell. The House is doubtless sufficiently acquainted with the character of his speeches; but I find by a speech of Mr. Duffy, of the Nation newspaper, delivered on the 5th of April, 1848, that he and those with whom he acts depend for the success of their designs not only on their own right hands, but also upon foreign assistance: they have applied to a foreign country for aid, and with the strength so obtained they have threatened the Government, and announced their intention of establishing a republic on the ruins of the monarchy. This is the speech of Mr. Duffy:— He said he had news for them from Smith O'Brien. He thought they knew that he was no boaster. He believed that they could trust in what he said, and felt that he said only what he intended to do. He (Mr. O'Brien) received last week an address from a certain Irish club in Paris, and the answer to that address excited a storm of curiosity. The Morning chronicle received that day expressed great annoyance that it could not lay its hands upon it, and the Lord Lieutenant would give an eye for it; but they would be generous—they would give it to him for nothing. (Cheers.) Here it was. Mr. O'Brien said, in answer to the club to which he referred, 'I have seen enough of France to convince me that she is able and willing, if invited, to make an effort to send 50,000 of her most valued citizens to support the Irish nation in a struggle." (Great cheering.) The answer of Lamartine had been received, and, like all State documents, it meant nothing (a laugh); but he thought they could be indifferent to it, after the promises of one of their truest men ringing in their ears. (Cheers.) The Union was repealed. (Cheers.) He thought so that morning, but he had 50,000 additional reasons for believing that it was repealed. (Cheers.) I have not read this as attaching the slightest credit to the 50,000 reasons in favour of repeal of which Mr. Duffy is pleased to speak. Whatever opinion the members of the Irish Confederates may put forward on the subject, it is impossible to read the answer of M. Lamartine, and entertain any doubt with respect to its signification. He did not for a moment hesitate: he was bold, explicit, and, as I have no doubt honest, in distinctly and decidedly refusing to send a man to England or Ireland. I am persuaded that the disaffected party have not the slightest chance of assistance from France after the declaration of M. Lamartine. I believe that Mr. Duffy is deceiving himself, or making himself a tool for deceiving others, if he believes that, if they should be induced to arm themselves for insurrection, they would be backed, in what would otherwise be a hopeless struggle, by 50,000 French bayonets for the establishment of a republic in Ireland; and for the purpose of driving away from that country, not only every Englishman, but every person of property and wealth—for such statements have been made—who would not join them, and of confiscating their property. At the discussion to which I have referred, at the National Confederation in Dublin, Mr. M'Ghee said— The Confederation should enlarge its borders, and every man should go forth that night a recruiting sergeant for the new National Guard. (Cheers.) They should have no more words about what they intended doing. Without an army they could not do anything. They should set about creating a union of all classes in right earnest; and the very first flash from their front ranks would drive from the soil for ever the tenants of the Castle. (Cheers.) Lord Clarendon had gone about begging from the churchwardens marks of confidence, and had told them, that in case of a rising they would not defend private property, but would merely protect the Castle and the public boards, and leave the citizens to form armed associations to defend their own. It was a base calumny against the people to say, that if necessity compelled them to draw the sword to smite in the cause of Ireland, they would play the burglar and the petty thief. They would not break into any private house. They would not outrage any private feeling, or violate any tie, but would smite the common enemy over the heads of those who were neutral, or hesitating in the cause of their common country. (Cries of 'Hear!' and cheers.) He regarded no man as an enemy except the foreigner and the intruder. If they were obliged to draw the sword as a last resource, every man would lie in the streets a corpse, with his hand beneath his lifeless head, or else Ireland should be a free nation. (Cheers.) They would have no authority but what was native—no soldiery but what they would raise themselves—no foreign flag should fly between them and heaven. Their green flag should float above their own towns, and go in the van with their men to battle. (Cheers.) They would fight—they must fight; they would be disgraced before the world if they did not determine their cause that year. (Loud cheers.) England should be quick about it if she desired to restore peace; and nothing but unconditional repeal would content them. (Loud cheers.) I am sure I need not further allude to what is the character of the advice given by men who possess some influence on the masses, or to what their designs are, which they do not attempt to conceal, but openly, unhesitatingly, and unblushingly avow. I will only make one observation with respect to the last extract I have read. Allusion is there made to the effect, that Lord Clarendon "had gone about begging from the churchwardens marks of confidence." I am bound to say, in justice to a large portion of the population in Ireland, that it has been quite unnecessary, while these proceedings were going on, for the Lord Lieutenant to go about begging for marks of confidence. I have received a letter from him, in which, after describing the state of the country, he says— I have the satisfaction to inform you that the flagitious designs publicly avowed by the popular leaders have elicited the expression of much right feeling, and that a loyal declaration, extensively circulated throughout the country, has, in the space of a few days, received upwards of 140,000 signatures from persons of all classes, which may fairly be taken to represent the rank, the property, and the intelligence of Ireland; and among them will be found the names of many of the Roman Catholic prelates, clergy, and laity. My noble Friend behind me reminds me that that letter is dated the 27th of March, and that it only stated the number of signatures then attached to the declaration. That is, however, but half the number of signatures which the declaration now bears; for since that period the amount of signatures has increased to 280,000. I need not say, therefore, that in referring to those speeches and writings, which have occasioned feelings of excitement and alarm, I do not allude to them as expressing the opinions of the great body of the people in Ireland. There is in Ireland a large portion of the population as loyal and as devotedly attached to the Government and institutions of the country as any to be found in any portion of Her Majesty's dominions. It is on that our great reliance is placed; but, in defence of these loyal subjects, the Government, if it finds the law too weak to put down sedition, is bound to come to Parliament to ask for such an alteration of the law as—not exceeding the necessary limits—may enable the Government to deal satisfactorily with cases of this kind, and to restrain language calculated, if unchecked, to occasion terror and dismay among the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of Ireland. I will proceed now to state, as accurately as I can, what the law is with respect to offences of this kind. The law in England and Ireland is not the same on this subject. At least, there exist doubts whether the law of treason in the two countries is identical or not. The general law respecting treason, as the House is well aware, is founded on the 25th of Edward III., cap. 2. That law was extended to Ireland in the reign of Henry VII., and undoubtedly applies now to the whole of the United Kingdom; therefore any act committed within the United Kingdom, and falling within the provisions of the Statute of Edward III., renders the parties guilty of it amenable to the penalties of high treason. By that Act any person compassing or imagining the death of the Sovereign, levying war against the Sovereign, or being adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere, is guilty of high treason, and subject to the penalties of high treason. But an important alteration of the law was made by the 36th of George III., which was to endure only for the life of the then King, and for one Session of Parliament after his demise. By that Act, passed in 1795, it was provided that— If any person or persons whatsoever, after the day of the passing of that Act, during the natural life of His Majesty, and until the end of the next Session of Parliament after the demise of the Crown, should within the realm or without compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maiming or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of the King, his heirs or successors, or to deprive or depose him or them from the style, honour, or kingly name of the Imperial Crown of this realm, or of any other of the King's dominions or countries, or to levy war against the King, his heirs and successors, within this realm, in order by force or constraint to compel him or them to change their measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or to intimidate or overawe either House, or both Houses of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade this realm, or any other of the King's dominions or countries, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them should express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed, legally convicted thereof, on the oaths of two credible witnesses, in due course of law, should be deemed and adjudged traitors, and suffer the pains of death, and also forfeiture, as in the case of high treason. That was a most material extension, as the House will observe, of the law of treason as existing under the Statute of Edward III., and applicable to England and Ireland. By the Act of Edward III. it was required to constitute the crime of high treason, that a person should compass or imagine the death of the King, or should actually levy war against him, &c.; but the 36th of George III. extended the law of treason, making it applicable, not only to persons who should compass the death of the King, or his imprisonment, or should actually levy war against him, but to those who should compass and design to levy war against the Sovereign, or stir up any stranger or foreigner by force to invade this realm, or any other dominions of His Majesty; and should express, utter, or declare such purposes, by the publication of any writing or printing. I before observed that this Act was only a temporary Act; but in the 57th of George III. this first section of the Act was made perpetual. The Act of 57th George III. was passed subsequent to the Union, yet grave doubts have existed whether it extended the law "it made perpetual" to Ireland; and the preponderance of legal opinion inclined to the conclusion that this statute does not extend to Ireland, and that the Government would not be justified in indicting for treason parties committing any of the offences comprised in that statute if committed in Ireland. Now, I think the House will agree with me, that, whatever its opinion may be with respect to the law, or whatever alterations of the general law it might deem expedient, there exists no sufficient or satisfactory ground for any difference in respect to the law of high treason in one part of the United Kingdom and another. This law of treason applies at present to England and Scotland; but doubts, at least, exist as to its application to Ireland. In Ireland, therefore, the only law of treason clearly in force is the Statute of Edward III. I believe Ireland has derived no benefit from not having this Act applied to it; and that recourse has been had from time to time to more violent remedies than would have been necessary if the ordinary law, applicable to the suppression of treasonable designs in other parts of the kingdom, had been in force in Ireland. The consequence is, that when the Government of the country, having its attention directed to writings and language of the kind to which I have adverted, and finding dangerous consequences likely to result from such writings and language, has recourse to the legal powers it possesses to avert the results likely to ensue, and to prevent, by the punishment of the guilty parties, perhaps scenes of bloodshed and ruin, it discovers itself to be comparatively powerless for this purpose. The only law applicable to anything short of high treason is the law of sedition; and I have already adverted to what is the consequence of such a state of the law. Sedition is a bailable offence, however nearly it may approach to the crime of treason, and however difficult it may be to recognise the distinction in many cases. It is, however, bailable; and when bail is given, the party offending is then released from the time of his original arrest until the time of trial, and is at liberty, if he chooses to risk the consequences, to repeat the sedition, and to employ the interval in prosecuting those designs for which he was to be made amenable to a legal tribunal, and in attempting to avert, by overturning the institutions of the country, the punishment to which he may have rendered himself liable. One mode of dealing with this case would be, that the doubts now existing respecting the application of the law to Ireland should be simply removed, and that the Statute of the 36th George III. should be rendered perpetual and extended to Ireland. The law, then, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom would be the same. I admit that it is desirable that the same law should be enforced throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; but when we look at the provisions of the law, we find it in its justly comprehensive character to be one, nevertheless, of great severity. It must be borne in mind, also, that for some time past our criminal code has undergone wise and humane alterations, mitigating the punishment which used to be applicable to many offences. A salutary change has taken place in public opinion with respect to the crimes to which capital punishment should be attached; and it is desirable that our legislation should proceed, as far as is consistent with the great object of criminal laws, in accordance with that spirit. We, therefore, do not propose simply to apply this Act to Ireland. The provisions of it, as I have stated, are severe, and, considering the modifications which have taken place in our criminal law since the passing of that Act, we do not wish to propose any enactment either for England or Ireland which should be at variance with the spirit of our recent criminal legislation. We do not propose, however, to repeal any portion of the penalties of that Act, so far as relates to compassing the death of the Sovereign, or the personal restraint or imprisonment of the Sovereign; and we propose to extend all the unrepealed part to Ireland. We do not think we ought in any degree to relax the stringency of the law which throws that protection round the person of the Sovereign; but with respect to the other offences—offences embraced in the perpetual Act, applicable to England, and amounting here to treason—we propose to repeal so much of the Act as relates to offences not immediately directed against the person of the Sovereign. Her heirs, and successors. We then propose to enact that the latter offences mentioned in that statute should be offences subject to the same penalty in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and that the commission of them should be felony, subjecting the parties guilty of them to transportation for the term of their natural lives, or for a term not less than seven years, at the discretion of the Court, as these offences admit of various qualifications under various circumstances. That is the substance of the Bill which I propose to ask leave to introduce. With respect to the offence of compassing the levying of war against the Sovereign, or moving or stirring any foreigner or stranger to invade the country by force, the Act stranger of George III. is sufficiently explicit; but I am afraid that this would not quite meet the evil we now have to contend with. The 57th of George III. requires that the imagining and compassing should be expressed in a printed publication, or writing, or by an overt act. I take it to be an overt act if persons go to a foreign country to ask for aid, and to invite an invasion; but if a person in Dublin, or in any part of this country, openly and publicly excite others by speech, and not by writing, to any of these acts, he might still be exempt from any penalty except that which attaches to sedition. In mitigating some of the severities of the law, we are bound to see that we do not allow any loophole by which gentlemen who are themselves learned in the law may escape the penalty attached to the higher offence, because they may have the prudence to abstain from publishing their speeches themselves, which nevertheless are daily reported and published in the newspapers. We must tape care not to give them the opportunity of saying that they cannot be touched except on the charge of sedition, which would leave them for a time to follow up their designs and to carry them out, irrespective of the consequences to others who may be brought within the reach of a more stringent law. We, therefore, propose to bring within the provisions of the Bill I am about to introduce all persons who should compass and promote the prosecution of such designs as I have referred to by "open and advised speaking." These are terms well understood in the courts. Such is the substance of the Bill which I ask leave of the House to lay on the table. Having been in constant communication with my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I may state that he feels himself comparatively powerless in the exercise of the authority which the ordinary law gives him to stem the tide of sedition. Anxious as he is, with the constitutional principles which influence him—anxious as the Government are not to ask for larger powers than are necessary—anxious also for the peace, the interest, and security of the realm, and for the means of adequately discharging those duties which devolve on the Government, who are responsible for the security of the Crown and the Government, for the tranquillity of the State, and the maintenance of Her Majesty's dominions—the measure I now ask leave to bring in is what we consider essential to arm the Lord Lieutenant with sufficient powers. This measure will be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom; and for open and advised speaking in favour of the designs which have been openly avowed, the parties will be liable to transportation for a term of not less than seven years. I do not refer to such a speech as was attributed to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), but to speeches which would come within the term, which he will understand, of "open and advised." This, it is proposed, should be made the law for the whole of the United Kingdom; and, this offence would be rendered felony in Ireland, instead of its being, as it is at present, only sedition. There may be other regulations necessary to be hereafter proposed to the House; but they will partake more of the character of police regulations, to meet any disposition to follow the advice that has been given "to arm for the coming conflict." I will not, however, mix that subject up with the present. I propose this Bill as a permanent amendment of the law, and, I believe, a valuable amendment of the law, as respects the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that it will arm the Government with powers which will render it more respected, and prevent the scandal of persons inciting to crimes such as I have adverted to in one part of the kingdom, which they might be effectually prevented from doing in another. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. J. O'CONNELL regretted to say he felt obliged to oppose the Bill. There were some of the observations of the right hon. Baronet in which he did not concur, and many in which he did. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet in the feeling of abhorrence which he expressed at the doctrines preached throughout Ireland, and in the attempts made to drive the people of that country into the most criminal acts of rebellion. It was not from any sympathy in the policy pursued by those paltry parties. He could not be accused of having much sympathy with them, if for no other reason than because some of those very men had attacked him personally with all possible acrimony, and some of them went even so far as to suggest, both in newspapers and in speeches, that he ought to be made away with, as one who stood between them and the accomplishment of their crimes. He had no political sympathy with these men, for he believed in his soul that such persons were the very worst enemies of the cause to which he was devoted. He believed in his soul that they were to the cause of repeal what the United Irishmen of 1798 were to the progress of liberty in Ireland, for it was notorious that the acts of the United Irishmen were the cause of the Union. The country was, by their infatuation, thrown into a state of confusion, and the fatal Act of Union was passed. The greatest danger which beset the repeal cause was its having been taken up by men who uttered the most criminal doctrines, and who gave the most criminal advice to the people. Yes, he thought such men the very worst enemies of the cause which he advocated. Therefore, he again repeated, his opposition to the Bill did not arise from any sympathy whatever—not the slightest—in the acts or language of these men, for he entertained towards their doctrines feelings of the utmost abhorrence—feelings as entire, as full, and as strong, as those entertained by the right hon. Baronet. If he thought that this Bill was absolutely neces- sary, in order to preserve the peace, he would at once assent to it; but he was under the impression that it was not immediately nor imperatively needed. It was his firm impression that the ordinary law was sufficient, and that this measure would only have the effect of increasing the irritation which already existed in that country. It will be said in Ireland, "See how ready the British Government always is to avail itself of every pretext for passing severe and penal measures, but see how slow they are to redress our grievances. In all matters of severity the Government is always willing to make the laws as strong, if not stronger, in Ireland than in England; but as far as constitutional privileges are concerned they do nothing." He would remind the House, more in sorrow than in anger, of the opportunities lost by the present Government for conciliating the people of Ireland. Let him remind them of the pledges given, not merely by the Government, but by both sides of the House, of their intention to remedy the social and political ills of Ireland, and how little had been done towards the fulfilment of those pledges. It was his unpleasant duty to oppose the late Coercion Bill for Ireland proposed by the Government; and upon that occasion he told them how dilatory they were in the performance of their promises towards Ireland, and that nearly two years had elapsed without one substantial measure of justice having been carried for that country, or even attempted. Upon the third reading of that Coercion Bill, he again addressed the House, and told them that, as there was no longer any doubt that it would be carried into law, he trusted that remedial measures would accompany it. But his remonstrances had been utterly useless—nothing was done—nothing was even attempted, unless an absurd Landlord and Tenant Bill, with machinery so cumbersome, and involving so much expense in the working, that it would be useless, or worse than useless, and which would produce discontent rather than satisfaction. Great promises had been made at the beginning of the Session respecting Ireland; but here they were, in the third of it, and he asked the House whether a single Bill had been passed, or was in progress, calculated to mitigate the sufferings, whether political or social, under which it was admitted that unfortunate country groaned? He could concur with the Government and the House that much of the irritation and discontent which at present existed in Ireland was caused by this breach of faith, and that the canker-worm which preyed upon the vitals of that country was the misgovernment and the bad legislation of this House. A great deal of the disturbance and discontent which now existed in Ireland was attributable to their want of faith; and if they had done justice, it was quite impossible that those men could have so wrought upon and influenced the minds of the Irish people. If they had acted fairly and in a candid spirit of fair dealing towards them, those preachers of sedition, instead of being applauded, would have been hooted and hissed through the streets of Dublin; but the unfortunate people were in a state of despair, and it was little to be wondered at that they were ready to listen to the most violent and seditious language. The strength of those spouters of sedition was their injustice—give the Irish people but justice, and they would most effectually disarm those speakers and writers. He believed the present laws were quite sufficient to preserve the peace, and to bring to justice those who endangered the peace of society in their doctrines. Let them bring in measures of amelioration and justice instead of coercion and "gagging" Acts, and they would leave those preachers without a single auditor. Again, he thought the moment at which the Bill was introduced most inopportune. Why was it not introduced be, fore? Why was it brought on the approach of term, when those gentlemen were to be tried? Why not await the result of that trial? Why not see whether the ordinary law would not meet the occasion? But it was said that new powers were given by the Bill—magistrates might not take bail for seditious offences. He was not quite satisfied but that magistrates might refuse bail for such offences at present. If there was anything new in the Bill it was increased severity; and he left it to the House to say how much of it would induce the people of Ireland to place faith in the wisdom and clemency of the Imperial Parliament when they found that the only measure which Government introduced to meet their admitted wretchedness and distress was one of coercion and extreme severity. He had no objection, but, on the contrary, as a loyal subject, would do all in his power to prevent the spreading of sedition, and would think he had neglected his duty if he did not act so; but then he thought the ordinary powers of the law, if efficiently worked out, were amply sufficient for that purpose. He would not utter one sentiment which might in the slightest degree prejudice or affect those gentlemen who were in the course of a few days to be put on their trial; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might have spoken with greater caution upon this subject. Again, he said he was prepared to do his duty, as every loyal subject should, in any emergency, or in case an attempt was made to carry those wicked designs into execution. He wished the peace of the country to be preserved—he wished the institutions of the country to be maintained—he wished that the laws of the country might not be violated—but at the same time he would continue to advocate the repeal of the Union, and in doing so he was not acting in any way contrary to the spirit of the constitution, or in defiance of any statute. He must once more express his decided conviction that this Bill would only inflame—irritate, and that it would render a large portion of the people sympathisers with those men who had now only some hundreds, or at most some thousands at their guidance. He wished the Government would postpone the Bill, and try what measures of conciliation and of a remedial nature would effect; and he said this as one who had done all in his power to counteract the evil tendencies of the seditious harrangues of those persons. He would oppose the Bill.

MR. HUME said, he always heard with alarm any attempt at coercion; and, last night, when he heard the notice given by the right hon. Baronet, he was alarmed at what might be its purport. He wished to know whether he rightly understood the proposition of Her Majesty's Government? In the first place he must observe that he thought the time was come when all these old Acts should be repealed, and that one simple Act should be framed to make the existing law of treason felony. At the present moment it was difficult to define what was really treason. It seemed that certain existing Acts did not extend to Ireland, and that Her Majesty's Government proposed to make the same law which was applicable to England and Scotland applicable to Ireland. Here he quite agreed with the Government. The second object, he presumed, was, that there should be a modification of those offences which were now punishable by death—making the penalty that of transportation; and that there- fore that which was now high treason would be dealt with as felony. That was an alteration which he approved of, for he never found that very severe laws worked well practically. But then came the third point. There was a clause proposed to the effect that in England, Ireland, and Scotland, alike, the fact of a person openly, avowedly, and advisedly speaking, was to be deemed a new offence. If speaking openly and advisedly was to be made felony, he did hold it to be a great stretch of power, and an innovation which might be attended with serious consequences. No man deprecated more than he did any man urging others to do or say that which he had not the courage to do himself. But if the whole population were to be placed under this new law, it might be termed a gagging law, if he understood what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet. The interference with the freedom of speech on political matters, was to impose a power which was neither wise nor just. He must express his regret at the noble Lord introducing so great a novelty. He protested against this clause. Let the House clearly understand the intentions of the Government. By opposing the introduction of the measure, he thought they should, perhaps, do injury to the Government, and they might, be supposed to be interfering and stopping the Government in refusing them those powers which he wished them to have. He would therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who, he presumed, intended to divide the House, that he should satisfy himself by protesting against what he called the gagging clause. They would, however, be able better to judge on the matter when they saw the clause in print. He was, therefore, anxious to have an explanation from the bench below him as to whether he clearly understood that it was felony to speak openly and advisedly at public meetings? If this were to be the case, he should enter his protest against this new enactment.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, perhaps the House would allow him to explain. His hon. Friend was right in saying that the Government proposed to extend the same law to Ireland which now prevailed in England and Scotland. They proposed also to mitigate the character of the crime and the punishment. They proposed to alter the one from treason to felony; and to change the punishment from the penalty of death to that of transportation. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in sup- posing that part of the words introduced were new, and not contained in the Act of 1796. It was not that the person by openly and advisedly speaking at a meeting was liable to the penalty named; but "any person intending to depose the Queen, or proposing to make war against the Queen, or seeking to intimidate or to overawe both Houses of Parliament, or seeking aid from any foreign Power to invade the United Kingdom with that intent, or should express either, or declare in writing, or openly or advisedly speak to that effect—such person so offending should be liable," &c.

MR. HUME understood that part of the new matter went to prevent parties going over to a foreign country, and soliciting its aid against this country. To that he could have no objection; but his objection on the point he had referred to remained.

MR. F. O'CONNOR, objected in the strongest manner to the introduction of the measure in the sixteenth year of the Reform Bill, and after the former promises of the Government that severe laws would be rather relaxed than increased in the United Kingdom; and it was his intention, if he stood alone in that House, to resist such a Bill. If they took example from what was passing abroad, to institute coercion, they ought also to take example from the concessions which had been made to the people of foreign countries. One of the first shackles which a liberated people struck from their arms was that which was imposed upon the liberty of the press; and he could assure them that there was very little use in the freedom of the press, if it were not accompanied by liberty of speech. What were they about to do? To revive and extend the old statutes of treason, of the Henrys, of the Edwards, and the Georges. This Bill was an infringement upon the rights and liberties of the people of England. The hon. Member for Limerick said that he had been much abused for having opposed the proceedings of those persons in Ireland who had made the speeches alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wish to have those clauses extended to himself for his protection, so that no one should speak against him more than against the person of the Sovereign. Let them see what this Bill would do. In Ireland at the present time one witness was sufficient to prove the crime of treason; by the law of England two witnesses were required; so that while they extended the meshes of the law, and included a greater range of offences within its grasp, they had not equally extended the security for the innocent man against the machinations of the perjurer and the informer. He would ask the Government what had been the principle contended for by the reformers of old? Why, it was that the power behind the Throne should not be superior to it. Let them remember this—let them act upon this principle; and they would not shame those whom they boasted as their predecessors; as long as they permitted liberty of speech to the people, they might have sedition preached, but it would be open sedition, against which they could guard. Should they, however, adopt a contrary course, it would be sown far and widely in secret societies and clubs—they could not guard against it, for the danger would not be known until it burst upon them, for every man would be afraid to express an open opinion, fearing he might tread upon the very verge of sedition. As to danger from invasion, he would say that he should be the very first to volunteer against a foreign army, because the umpire in such cases ever became the conqueror and the oppressor. In the language of the hon. Member for Harwich, in 1822, he would assure them— If you want to tranquillise Ireland, you must do her justice; but you cannot prevent her from rising, if you refuse, not even if you have a halter round the neck of every man, with an armed soldier at his back. Would the present Bill tranquillise Ireland? He believed far otherwise. Was this Bill the means by which they wished to do justice and to pacify a starving and excited people—to give security to property and protection to life? The principles contained in the People's Charter were those principles which were advocated by Charles James Fox, the Duke of Richmond, and the other great reformers of that day. They contended for the very same principles which the people advanced now. The present Bill would leave it in the power of the Judge to discriminate upon the niceties of language, and to decide where sedition commenced, and where treason ended. They all knew that the difference—the line of demarcation— between sedition and treason was difficult to be laid down. This Bill would leave the decision in the hands of the Judge. Let them remember that he was the officer of the Crown. There was a saying used by the predecessors of the Gentlemen in office, which was very popular at one time, and which he would like to see carried into effect. It was, "the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." It was repeated by the present Gentlemen when out of office. What had the Queen or the Government of this country to dread except the disaffection of the people? That disaffection could not be cured by coercion. The principle upon which Her Majesty's Ministers were relying was coercion—coercion for England, and coercion for Ireland. If they were to extend this law to Ireland, why not extend it upon the same basis as that it was founded upon in England? Why should they leave out the modification, and place Ireland in a worse position than England? He wished to know, were Irish Gentlemen prepared to give a silent vote upon this Bill? Let them give every man in Ireland the fullest right of speech; let them enact for the country good laws; and then such Bills as this would not be required. Then they might allow the few uncomfortable men to talk and talk away; the soundness of the majority would govern, and peace and order would reign triumphant. The people of the country expected more from the Government of the noble Lord than from any other Government which ever held office; yet now, in the sixteenth year of the reformed Parliament, they introduce a Coercion Bill; why, they would revolutionise the whole country. If they were awakened to a sense of danger, and if they were paralysed by what was going on abroad, concession and not coercion would add to their security. He (Mr. O'Connor) had always told the people that the very existence of the Government was primâ facie evidence of its goodness. He had also always told the people that they had more liberties and more privileges than any other people in Europe; those privileges were the right of free discussion and the liberty of speech; take them away and they would stop his mouth: he did not mean by intimidation, but he would not be able to tell the people that they were so any longer. As for him, he had been always made amenable to the law; 500 men had been made amenable to the law, which was a sufficient proof that the law was strong enough to vindicate itself. It was monstrous that this addition should be made to it; and he was right glad that the hon. Member for Montrose was the first English Member to rise, and, with his usual sagacity and love of justice, to enter his protest against it. What was the fact? The Government made a relaxation in the law of treason, in order to make a very great alteration in the law of sedition. Under colour of a relaxation of the law, they made a very great infringement on the liberties of the people by interfering with the law of sedition. It was high time that these disgraceful laws should be swept from the Statute-book; let them do this, let them not coerce the people, let them listen to their complaints, and let them redress their grievances, and then they might defy sedition at home, or invasion from abroad. If he went into the lobby alone, he would divide the House upon the question; it was courtesy to concede a first reading of a Government Bill to the Government, but he looked on the first step in which there was a departure from principle as the wrong one; and, thus viewing it, he would not concede anything to courtesy. In every case where the law had been relaxed, the people had become more contented, more peaceable, and more happy; and if they doubted this, he would refer them to the case of the Jews in Hamburg in the year 1786. In conclusion, he would protest against this Bill as an infringement upon the rights and liberties of the people.

MR. R. M. FOX was convinced there never was a time when the people of the two countries might more certainly advance in prosperity than the present if they were only quiet and peaceable. He would do all in his power to establish peace, but he thought it could not be effected by any symptom, however small, of a coercive tendency. He was sure that every Irish Member would with him express their abhorrence of the treason which was uttered by Mr. Mitchell and others, principally because it would lead the Irish people into a collision with the military, the result of which would be the annihilation of order, and the starvation of thousands more than what occurred now. But he was sure that the Government and the landlords in Ireland could do much to avert all these calamities, and bring the country in a short time into prosperity, happiness, and peace. If they really wished to establish quiet in Ireland, he thought in one month it might be done. Let the Government undertake to establish a poor-law equal to meet the existing distress, and conferring upon the poor what at present they had not, a right to relief the same as in England; let them give a vastly extended franchise and a vastly extended right of representation, and let them declare that they would take into consideration the much-mooted question of the repeal of the legislative Union, and allow hon. Members to discharge the business of their own country; and if the Irish landlords would also do their part towards the general welfare, then the voice of Irish discontent would be silenced for ever.

MR. GRATTAN considered that the Irish people were loyal. Nor should he doubt of their loyalty and tranquillity, were it not for the extravagant preparations of war to which he had been a witness. Ministers had paid importance to speeches, and they had prepared barracks; but, in his opinion, they had paid greater importance to spies and informers than they should. The island was filled with soldiers; troops were quartered in Trinity College, in the Linen Hall, at the Bank, and in Leinster Lawn. The Lord Lieutenant was perfectly right in guarding against insurrection, because he must know what would be the consequence of an attempt at revolution. But he did believe that the Lord Lieutenant was not rightly informed as to the state of Ireland—he was surrounded by bad advisers, and Irishmen were far apart from his councils. The whole country was in a state of alarm, and that alarm prevailed especially among the old unmarried ladies. It appeared that spies and informers were the order of the day. A man of the name of Hyland had come forward, the avowed pikemaker to the Castle of Dublin. In Limerick one of the Castle agents ordered ten pikes, but could only get three. Now, he would ask them, were they come to such a pass that the country was to be governed through the medium of spies? When spies were employed under the Administration of Lord Castlereagh, the people of England to a man protested against the employment of such infernal miscreants. The Bill was for the purpose of giving securities to the Crown and to the Government; but there was no mention in it of security to the people. He would tell them that the people had no security. The present measure would fall greatly short of its mark; and he was certain that it would not succeed. The whole system of English settlement bad failed in Ireland. The Duke of Wellington, who said the only time he lost was the time he spent in Ireland, admitted that it was a failure, and he said that they should reconquer Ireland, not by the sword but by justice and concession. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ad- mitted the failure; and they might not and ought not to expect to govern a country by a body of men who lived out of it. The greatest of Grecian orators said, that the property of the absent and the indifferent would soon become that of the active and the energetic. This would be the case in Ireland; the property of the country was in the possession of the frieze coat, and he would soon become as of right entitled. Were the absentee landlords at home, the country would be as quiet as any part of England. People took the rents, then ran away, and called upon the poor Irishmen to stand the brunt of the battle. Hon. Members had little idea of the deplorable state in which the country was. A parish priest in Galway wrote that he had seen a woman dead in a ditch by the way side, and that a little farther on he had administered the sacrament to another female, whom he found dying upon the path. In the gaol of Cork no less than 866 persons had died in a month, and yet the Government were contented with the most inefficient measures of relief. It was not that the people of Ireland wished to separate themselves from England—to throw off their allegiance to the Crown. The priests dreaded and opposed the principles of the French revolution, and the Government need fear no insurrection arising from purely political causes. What they had to dread was the consequences of the general and deep-seated discontent of the people. Let England take means to relieve their sufferings, and so they would put an end to their disaffection. Let measures be passed to compel the residence in Ireland of the Irish nobility and gentry, and let Her Majesty call together a Parliament in Dublin.

LORD DUDLEY STUART observed, that the Bill was called a Bill for the better security of the Crown and the Government. Now, he thought the best way of securing the one and the other was to attend to the just wants and wishes of the people. Indeed, there was no other way. They might bring in Coercion Bills, and thus get over a temporary difficulty; but the remedy would be temporary also, and by it no permanent security could be attained. This observation he applied to England as well as to Ireland and Scotland. He wished for equal laws for every part of the empire; and, so far as it went, to promote an equality of legislation. He approved of the Bill before the House. But how did it propose to effect that equal- ity? Why, by making the laws of England more indulgent, and those of Ireland more stringent. He believed that in this country the people would not long rest satisfied without an extension of the franchise, and a division of the country into electoral districts. The time was not far distant when we must have—not to mince the matter—a new Reform Bill, embodying a more just and equal system of representation than the present. In Ireland, too, there were many things which the people wanted, and which they had a right to demand; and although some law of this kind might be necessary—for it was clearly impossible to allow matters to go on in Ireland as they had been proceeding—still, when they introduced measures of this description to make the law more stringent, they ought at the same time to bring forward measures for the amelioration of the country, and for the relief of the wants of the people. But where were their remedial measures? With the exception of one other Bill, at present in another place, and the measure relating to landlord and tenant—which he had good authority for saying was of such a complicated nature that it would never be brought into satisfactory operation—with the exception of these two Bills, not a remedial measure had been introduced. Surely this was not a time when a Government could be content to remain inactive. They ought to strain every nerve, to turn every stone for the relief of the suffering country. He believed, that though the Irish might be an excitable, that they were an intelligent, a courageous, an affectionate, and a loyal people; and in illustration of the fact, he might recount to the House an anecdote which was little known, but which he assured them was perfectly true. At the commencement of the late French revolution, before it was known whether or not the people would be hurried into those excesses which they happily avoided, or what the danger to individuals or property might be, a deputation of Irishmen waited on Lord Normanby, and told him that if he entertained the slightest apprehension either for the safety of his person or that of the embassy, they had come to offer the services of 500 Irishmen, residents in Paris, who would form themselves into a body-guard, and shed every drop of their blood in defence of the best Lord Lieutenant which Ireland ever saw. With regard to the Bill before the House, he was bound to say that he looked with great jealousy upon any measure interfering with liberty of speech; and if he did give his vote for the first reading of the Bill—for he did not desire needlessly to embarrass the Government—still he hoped that it would be understood that he only recorded that vote in order that the Bill might be introduced and laid upon the table of the House—reserving to himself the full right of voting against it should he so determine at the second reading.

MR. REYNOLDS had heard the concluding portion of the speech of the noble Lord with great pain, because he was of opinion that a Bill the provisions of which had been so fully explained by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department—a Bill of so unconstitutional a nature— ought to be met on the thresh-hold with the firmest opposition. He reminded the House that three months only had elapsed since they had assented to another most unconstitutional Bill. He had foretold the result of that Bill. He had warned them that it was an unjust and uncalled-for measure, and that if it were passed it would not accomplish the object of its proposes. Well, but it had passed; and could anything be a stronger proof of its failure than the new measure introduced to-night? The object of that measure was to punish with transportation for life, or as a minimum with transportation for seven years, offences now punishable by fine and imprisonment. But there was another and a still more alarming ingredient in the Bill—for it placed in the hands of the Attorney General the power of inflicting the punishment of transportation for life, on account of words used in a moment of excitement, or perhaps words not spoken at all, but sworn to by some hireling incendiary; and he regretted to say that Ireland was too productive of such characters. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew the meaning of that cheer; but was it not true that Government after Government, whether Whig or Tory, had from time to time given encouragement to such characters? Why, only a day or two ago an agent of Government, Colonel Browne, the commissioner of Dublin police, despatched an emissary to a constituent of his to purchase pikes in order to found a charge against the vendor—the money for the weapons being actually paid, he presumed, out of the metropolitan police fund. He had heard it stated that Colonel Browne was a man of excellent reputation. He had the honour, if it were an honour, of knowing Colonel Browne; and the recent transaction had certainly not raised that gentleman in his opinion. He did not know how a man could be called respectable who was guilty of such conduct; and he put it to the Attorney General whether there was any law justifying the employment of a miscreant to go about giving orders for the manufacture of pikes? He understood, however, that it was quite in the line of Colonel Browne to be employed in this way. A full brother of his was employed in pursuing the unfortunate Queen Caroline, when she was persecuted from place to place, and he also received the wages of his prostitution. With respect to the conduct of those who were invoking French aid, he could not find words sufficiently strong to express his disapproval. But some allowance ought to be made for the state of the country. Look to the wholesale ejectments which were taking place. Were such scenes to be as common in England, they would have treason talked in every parish. Indeed, were it not for the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, not all the military strength at the command of this powerful Government could keep the peace of Ireland for forty-eight hours. If the majority of his countrymen were Protestants, they would not submit to the oppression they were now obliged to undergo. Let them consider the grievances Ireland laboured under. First, there were the temporalities of the Protestant Church, amounting to 700,000l. annually, without including—as he believed—the glebe lands, levied from a people of whom not above one-eighth belonged to the establishment which this vast sum was intended to support. Again, the political franchise was rapidly narrowing, and the municipal franchise had dwindled away almost to a name. In Dublin, with half a million of inhabitants and 21,000 rated houses, there were only 3,000 voters; but in Liverpool the proportion was far greater, because the municipal laws of the two countries were different, and the standard was made higher in Ireland than in England. The Bill before the House contemplated the infliction of a deep wound on his native country; but it should not be forgotten that she did not enjoy the same privileges, either as a franchise for Parliament nor for corporations, as England—that her waste lands remained uncultivated—and that she had received no benefits—at least he was at a loss to know what they were—from that House. They proposed to punish by transportation for life or for seven years, offences which were now punishable by fine and imprisonment; and that those political offences which at present were tried by special juries should in future be handed over to petty juries, where the Crown had the unlimited right of challenge, while the right of the prisoner was restricted to twenty. When he recollected the system of packing juries which had prevailed in Ireland, he shuddered at the prospect of this change. Was this Bill intended so have a retrospective operation? [Sir GEORGE GREY: No.] He was glad to hear that statement, for he feared it was intended to apply it to offences which had been already committed. He implored the Government to pause before they passed this Bill, and to try whether some other remedy could not be provided to suit the present circumstances in Ireland. He implored them to try the effect of mildness on the people. If they relied on the ordinary tribunals of the law, the Government might rest assured that they would be in a position to laugh to scorn all those who were plotting against them, and throwing obstacles in the way of the administration of the law. What right had the Government to apprehend any violation of the public peace in Ireland? [A laugh.] He told the hon. Gentlemen who laughed, that the heart of the people of Ireland was sound; and instead of being laughed at, he, should be cheered for his statement. Let the House take care, should this Bill be passed, if the people would remain so. With 30,000 troops and nearly 15,000 police, they had almost taken military possession of Ireland; but he called on them to show any one act which would justify that course. To be sure there had been a great deal of talk; but wherever he found much talk, he was certain to meet very little fighting. Then this talk had been all open. Men who concocted revolution very seldom warned the Government of their intentions; but here had been three men coolly saying, on such a day we intend to throw vitriol on the soldiers, on such a day we intend to make barricades, and on such a day we intend to march through Dublin Castle. Now he believed those fellows were humbugging, for he thought if they were in earnest they would adopt a very different course. He called on the House not to libel the people of Dublin by wholesale for the folly of a few, and not to brand them all as traitors because a few men among them made traitorous speeches. The people of Dublin were attached to the English con- nexion, and it would be the fault of the House if they did not continue so. There was one ingredient which it was unnecessary for the Government to put into this Act, "compassing the death of the Sovereign." In no part of her dominions could the life of Her Majesty be more safe than in Ireland. She was enthroned in the hearts and in the affections of her Irish subjects; and no matter what complaint might be made against the Government of the day, there was ever an exception in the mind of every Irishman in favour of the Monarch under whom he had the happiness to live.

MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL observed, that if, as the hon. Member for Dublin asserted, this Bill sought to inflict a wound on Ireland, it was only such a wound as would be inflicted by a skilful surgeon on a patient, in order to remove from him an unsound part. As an Irish representative, and regarding Irish interests above all earthly consid rations, he felt it his duty to give this Bill his support. The great grievance of which the people of Ireland had a right to complain was, that speeches which no man in that House could stand up to justify—which no man with any character for prudence, he would not say for honesty, because he was afraid there was more honesty than he could wish about those of whom he spoke—were made against all law and order, which practically went unpunished—which so long as they were unpunished, might lead others astray and cause the loss of thousands of lives—it was too much to suppose that men could be allowed to commit in Ireland crimes which would be heavily punished in England. Two months ago he never could have believed that such language could have been uttered by, or have been listened to, by any Irishman, as that which had again and again been repeated very lately in Dublin. The sentiments which were expressed, and he feared applauded, were not mere vague declarations of hostility to England—not mere threats "to march through the Castle of Dublin," and to tear down the English flag, but—and he alluded particularly to one young gentleman—to the statement that the speaker hoped he might not die till he saw Ireland a free and independent Republic. His prayer was, that Providence might grant that gentleman a long and discontented life. He believed our present monarchical institutions were essentially connected with the prosperity of Ire- land, more especially with that of the lower orders, and as their sincere well-wisher he would vote for this Bill, which was, he believed, calculated to sustain the monarchy and the empire. He did not think they should be too chary in administering punishment to men who whether, by their writings or by words, incited others to crime. If the law had hitherto dealt lightly with them, there was no reason why it should continue to do so; and if a man who incited another to set fire to his neighbour's corn-stack, was justly liable to undergo the penalties of the law, he saw no reason why he who incited men to treason against the monarchy, and to spread disorder and confusion should be allowed to go scot free.

MR. GROGAN begged to express his dissent from the view of the Bill taken by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Reynolds), and to express his entire concurrence in that which had been taken by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell). A feeling of uncertainty and alarm pervaded all classes of society in Dublin when these treasonable speeches were made; and Bank stock, than which there could be no better or more valuable security, had fallen six per cent within the last few days, while every class of the commercial community was paralysed. It was at this moment, however, that his hon. Colleague thought fit to come forward and oppose this measure, which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government to put an end to such a lamentable state of things.

MR. W. J. FOX said, it was not at all surprising that in the present discussion on this Bill, it had been made an exclusively Irish question. It was not surprising such had been the case, because the calamities and miseries of that unhappy country must necessarily be an absorbing topic, especially in the minds of those representatives who had been entrusted with the preservation of her rights, and the amelioration of her distresses. But the fact was much to be regretted, because it had drawn away the attention of the House from that portion of the Bill which was most important, to that which was least important. The subject which then occupied the greatest share in their discussions was, as he took it, the part of the Bill I which, in matters of treason, provided for the assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England. To that he saw no reasonable objection whatever. If the peace of Ireland were to be restored, if the Go- vernment were to put down sedition and treason, which he might say had been exhibited in a most revolting and disgusting form, it could not be done in a less exceptionable manner than in making the law of Ireland conform to that of England. It was plain that, if the law had not been stringent enough in Ireland, it had been too strict in England; and that if it had been too lax in the one country, it had been too severe in the other. It would appear that in this country, wherein the tendency to treason had never been so strong as in the other, you had, nevertheless, the stronger law against treason, and it could be no hardship to extend that law to the other. To that portion of the Bill, he, like the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), felt no objection. But that which, in his eyes, gave to the Bill its peculiar character, was the infringement it proposed upon that liberty of speech which had hitherto been the boast of Englishmen, and one of the great safeguards of our liberties. Once let it become the law of the land that spoken words—not words only tending to the destruction of the Sovereign, and to the promotion of rebellion, but words which may be construed as tending to impair the freedom of discussion in either or both Houses of Parliament, or may be interpreted as tending to overawe their deliberations—may subject the speaker to transportation for seven years, or for life; and it seemed to him that no man whatever would be safe in addressing a public meeting in times of political excitement. It was in such times, when men were roused by some invasion of their privileges, or were stimulated by a strong desire to extend them—when multitudes were gathered together, and when mind and feeling were glowing and ardent with popular aspirations—that it became morally impossible to weigh and measure every word and syllable, so as to stand secure against the misinterpretation of an ignorant reporter, or the perversion of a malignant spy. The excellency of the art of reporting was very great. There were, he knew, some men who, in the exercise of an almost magic power, could give a truthful reflex of the thoughts and expressions of the most impassioned speaker; but they were all liable to mistakes; and those who had had any opportunity of observing such matters, would agree with him in saying that the most truthful and accurate of reporters might make mistakes which seri- ously affected the sense and meaning of particular passages, especially when taken out of connexion, and subjected to legal as well as literary criticism. He had never in his life found reporters who were at all times proof against mistakes; and least of all was greater accuracy to be expected from the reporters of the police, who might go to meetings with preconceived notions of the speaker's opinions, and perhaps with a disposition to pervert his arguments. No man was safe with such chances against him; and in those times when prosecutions were common for spoken words, law was trampled under foot, and evil days came upon the country. They all knew that most atrocious injustice had been perpetrated under the disguise of the forms of law—honestly it might be—but at all events perpetrated by accusations of this kind against men utterly incapable of speaking words in the meaning, spirit, and tendency ascribed to them, and for which they suffered fine and imprisonment. If this Bill became law, he recommended every person going to a public meeting to write his speech, and to put it into his pocket. But it was not merely misconstruction of words—it was the true and fair construction of them which might sometimes involve the best of men in the meshes of such a law as this. "Spoken language tending to overawe the deliberations of either House of Parliament." What indignant attack on a corrupt or profligate Minister—what honest opposition to an unconstitutional Legislature—could escape such a net as that? He had heard in the times of the Reform agitation, over and over again, language from Gentlemen now hon. Members of that House, and who had become hon. Members of it on account of the fervency and boldness with which they expressed their opinions, which might well have been set down as tending to overawe the Houses of Parliament. Had this Bill then been law, these Gentlemen might have been liable to transportation. And he had heard language which might have been so construed, not merely from them, but from more than one right hon. Gentleman in that House, who were Members of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted that infringement on the acknowledged liberty of the country, that any attack on its best privileges, had not been seriously and deliberately made and introduced by the Government; but they had been led astray by looking to the insane and wicked speeches of Irish demagogues; and that in determining to find a remedy for the mischief of Irish agitation, they had forgotten the more tremendous mischief they were about to bring on this country. It was by public meetings, and by public speaking, the people made their voices heard; it was by those means that public opinion was best elicited. The political writer spoke to people in their homes; his written thoughts fell quietly and without excitement on their minds; they might be read and considered calmly and tranquilly; but it was by public meetings—it was in the collision of mind with mind—it was at the gatherings of those whose advantage and happiness were the object and end of all legitimate and good government —whose well-being was the great triumph for which statesmen and rulers called into exercise the whole force of their intellectual powers and abilities—it was by public meetings alone that public opinion could make itself felt, and it was by such meetings that the people of this country had made their opinions known, felt, and respected. They were more than this. If there was anything in the whole round of our law and practice, more than another, part and parcel of the British constitution, it was the right of the people to assemble in public meeting; and that right was one of the very last portions of the constitution with which they should consent to part. It was in the exercise of that power they found redress for their wrongs—it was thus they claimed privileges denied, while at the same time they found means to show they were not undeserving of them. The feelings which thus found vent were in general worthy of human nature; and though there were miscellaneous assemblages, in public squares, where violent men, accustomed to associate with each other only, and to enter into no conflict of opinions, uttered violent language, these were the exceptional and not the ruling cases. Let them take any fair public meeting in this city, and they would find truth and justice, propriety and moderation, possessing the ascendancy over all the opposite qualities. He had that confidence in human nature which induced him to rely on the native integrity of those assemblies of the people, and often had he seen the working men at them rebuke the use of intemperate language, and become the monitors and reprobators of those in higher stations who should have been their teachers. The lower orders possessed qualities which were, he feared, but little appreciated or understood. He trusted that (whatever measures might be necessary for preserving the peace in Ireland), this liberty which they had so often asserted, might yet be spared to them—this privilege which compensated them but in a degree for inequality of laws, of institutions, and of taxation. The people who suffered the most, still lived in hopes of better times and of more extended prosperity. The noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to look abroad with feelings only of alarm. He regarded the events with which all Europe rang from side to side—the noble Lord regarded the events on the Continent only as stimulating guilty desires and guilty efforts. A philosophic statesman—a truehearted man—might have seen another feature in these great occurrences, and might have received them otherwise than as stimulating to guilty desires and guilty efforts, which, limited to a small compass, could easily be dealt with, and, by the strong arm of power be crushed in the dust. Public opinion would go in glad response with such an act as that. But the events which the noble Lord considered as stimulating to guilty desires and guilty efforts, stimulated as well to acts and efforts which were noble and honourable. Among those honourable desires and honourable efforts was the desire on the part of the working classes of this country—who had far more intelligence and far higher morality than he feared they had credit given them for—among the honourable desires which the events on the Continent had naturally and inevitably raised in the minds of the working classes of this country, was the desire of obtaining for themselves a political status—of being themselves free, while they heard the shouts of the world around them, rejoicing at their newly-gained freedom—of making a way for themselves by peaceful and constitutional means—which were the only means the great body of the working classes wished to employ—for the attainment of political advantages; and upon such desires, such pursuits, and such efforts, the noble Lord, he thought, might have looked a little more benignantly; he might, he conceived, have spared some gracious words for them while he administered a stern rebuke to others; and, in connexion with a law relating to offences and crimes, to pains and penalties, he might have intermixed a promise and a hope that those who entertained the hon- ourable desires to which he had referred, might soon be enabled to share in the extension of the liberty which the world was now gaining. In the attainment and in the appreciation of those advantages—which the people must and would obtain before a long period elapsed—the noble Lord would have found a better Bill, a more perfect enactment, a living "law written in the heart," for the security of Her Majesty's Crown and Government.

LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman, who spoke so ably in the introduction of his address, has, I think, so far erred, that he has not waited to see the Bill, or to judge of the terms in which it is framed, before he passed a censure upon the proposition of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman spoke, and spoke very naturally, of the danger of affixing a heavy punishment to spoken words—words, it may be, spoken in heat and without premeditation. But when the hon. Gentleman goes on to say that we propose a too heavy punishment for words which may have been intended to overawe the Houses of Parliament, I think he has judged without seeing the Bill which we propose to bring in, and without knowing what its contents may be. It appears to me to be a totally different thing to condemn a man for speaking words which may of themselves be violent, or mischievous, or seditious, and to condemn a man for speaking words which have for their object either to depose the Sovereign of the realm, to excite to the levying of war, or to induce persons to apply for aid from foreign countries for the purpose of levying war. Now, this, as I understand, without reference to spoken words, but with reference to public writings, was the meaning of the Act of 1796. It enumerates various particulars, such as exciting persons to levy war for the purpose of imposing restraints upon the Sovereign, for the purpose of inducing the Sovereign to change his measures, and for the purpose of overawing and intimidating the Houses of Parliament. These are circumstances which are mentioned in that Act; but the action itself which is condemned is the using spoken words or publishing writings for the purpose of exciting persons to levy war. The levying war is a different thing from those offences which are vague and undefined. The offence of overawing the Houses of Parliament must be admitted to be of great danger and abuse; but the direct excitement to levy war against the Sovereign, whether that war be for the purpose of imposing personal restraint upon the Sovereign, or whether it be for the purpose of overawing Parliament, the excitement to levy war is of itself a grave and substantive offence; and yet the hon. Gentleman, in his description of the Bill, has either from ignorance or misapprehension entirely omitted the crime of the levying of war as forming any part of the measure. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will so far suspend his judgment, that he will not entirely upon a misapprehension condemn this part of the Bill; but that he will wait until he sees the Bill before he passes his final judgment upon it. I admit that there is danger in extending penalties of this kind to words spoken; but at the same time we have to consider that the penalty of high treason has frequently been awarded for words spoken—often a very few words—when they were supposed to express treasonable sentiments. At the present time—especially of late—instead of secret conspiracies and counsels in the dark to overthrow the monarchy, it has become a common means of compassing treason to address speeches to large masses of people, and to use words exciting to the levying of war and to the use of arms for the purpose of overbearing all legitimate authority in the country, and thereby of compassing mischievous and dangerous ends. When the mode of overturning the Government is changed, it is necessary to change the punishment. It is, I think, far better to apply the punishment of felony for this offence, than to make the Act in all respects like the Act of 1796, which applies the penalties of high treason to it. It may be argued that the punishment is still very severe; but I must say, I cannot help feeling that this excitement to levy war, which may actually result in levying war, and which was punished with death under the laws of Edward III., is really very lightly dealt with, considering the serious nature of the crime, and the condign punishment which might otherwise be inflicted. I will, however, not continue an argument on this subject until the House has had an opportunity of seeing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke, has said that the only allusion I made to the events which have taken place on the Continent was—to repeat the words I used—to the existence of "guilty hopes and guilty desires." The hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to recollect that I used those words in speaking of attempts which I thought might be made to disturb the peace of this metropolis, and not whilst giving my general opinion in respect to events which have taken place on the continent of Europe. It would not have been becoming in me, as I thought, upon this occasion, to enter into any comment upon those events; but, as the hon. Gentleman has so far misunderstood me, I must say, that whilst my feeling from the contemplation of those events is, I confess, of a mixed character, I cannot but rejoice in any part of those events which gives to nations who have not hitherto had the benefit of a national representation, political liberty, and a free press—those inestimable benefits. I do not now wish to distinguish—I think I should be liable to much misrepresentation if I did—between the parts of those events which cannot but be viewed with joy by every Englishman, and such parts of those events as are likely to give rise to apprehension. I trust that the final issue of those events may be increased liberty to the Continent. I cannot well, I think, have been so long a Member of the House of Commons of this country—I cannot have been a subject of these realms, without being delighted to see those benefits which this country has so long enjoyed extended to other countries of Europe. But when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the benefits that are to be derived to this country, and the honourable designs which are entertained in consequence of those events, I must say that much of what has been done on the Continent, much of what has been struggled for and earned at the expense of bloodshed—at the expense of civil conflicts—at the expense of the suspension of trade and industry—much of what has been thus obtained at an enormous cost, and by enormous sacrifices, but not too dearly, has been long enjoyed by the favoured people of this country. When, therefore, I am told that the people of this country have much to encourage them in what has taken place upon the continent of Europe, I say our position is such that, more than one hundred and fifty years ago, not only those articles of constitutional right which others may prize were obtained, but the foundations were laid for other benefits and other advantages, which were to be gained in the gradual progress of human society—as the light of literature—as the information of public opinion—:as the advancing humanity of mankind taught men better how to prize and how to secure the advantages of equal rights and of common civilisation. I do say, therefore, Sir, that with respect to our progress in late years, and our progress in future years, I think that, having obtained by a free press, by public discussion—which I do not believe this Bill will impair—and by Parliamentary representation, the means of improving all those blessings, we have no need to enter on any bloody or doubtful struggle; but we may rely on the constant and peaceful progress of human affairs, and upon the advantages which I am glad to see gained of increased liberty, for a steady and continual advance towards perfection.

The House divided:—Ayes 283; Noes 24: Majority 259.

Abdy, T. N.	Codringron, Sir W.
Adair, R. A. S.	Coke, hon. E. K.
Adderley, C. B.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Aglionby, H. A.	Coles, H. B.
Alcock, T.	Covile, C. R.
Anderson, A.	Compton, H. C.
Anson, Visct.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Arkwright, G.	Cowan, C.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Arundel and Surrey,	Craig, W. G.
Earl of	Cripps, W.
Bailey, J. jun.	Currie, H.
Baldock, E. H.	Davies, D. A. S.
Baldwin, C. B.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Barkly, H.	Denison, J. E.
Barnard, E. G.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Bateson, T.	Disraeli, B.
Bellew, R. M.	Dod, J. W.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
bernal, R.	Drummond, H.
Bernard, Visct.	Drummond, H. H.
Blackall, S. W.	Duff, G. S.
Boldero, H. G.	Duncan, G.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Duncuft, J.
Bowles, Adm.	Dundas, Sir D.
Brackley, Visct.	Dundas, G.
Bramston, T. W.	Dunne, F. P.
Bremridge, R.	Du Pre, C. G.
Broadley, H.	Ebringron, Visct.
Brockman, E. D.	Edwards, H.
Brotherton, J.	Egerton, Sir P.
Brown, H.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Buck, L. W.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Buller, C.	Evans, W.
Bunbury, E. W.	Ewart, W.
Busfeild, W.	Farrer, J.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Fergus, J.
Cardwell, E.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Carew, W. H. P.	Filmer, Sir E.
Carter, J. B.	Fitz Patrick, rt. hn. J. w.
Castlereagh, Visct.	Fordyce, A. D.
Chaplin, W. J.	Forster, M.
Childers, J. W.	Fortescue, C.
Christy, S.	French, F.
Clay, J.	Gaskell, J. M.
Clay, Sir W.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Clerk, right hon. Sir G.	Glyn, G. C.
Clifford, H. M.	Grace, O. D. J.
Clive, H. B.	Greene, T.
Cobbold, J. C.	Grenfell, C. P.
Cocks, T. S.	Grenfell, C. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Morpeth, Visct.
Grey, R. W.	Morison, Gen.
Grogan, E.	Morris, D.
Guest, Sir J.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Haggitt, F. R.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Hale, R. B.	Mundy, E. M.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Muntz, G. F.
Hamilton, G. A.	Napier, J.
Hastie, A.	Neeld, J.
Hastie. A.	Newry & Morne, Visct.
Hawes, B.	Norreys, Lord
Hay, Lord J.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Hayes. Sir E.	Nugent, Lord
Hayter, W. G.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Headlam, T. E.	O'Connell, M. J.
Heathcoat, J.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Ord, W.
Heneage, G. H. W.	Osborne, R.
Henley, J. W.	Oswald, A.
Henry, A.	Packe, C. W
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Paget, Lord A.
Heywood, J.	Palmer, R.
Hildyard, R. C.	Palmer, R.
Hindley, C.	Palmerston, Visct.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.	Parker, J.
Hobjouse, T. B.	Patten, J. W.
Hodges, T. L.	peel, right hon. sir R.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	peel, Col.
Hope, Sir J.	Perfect, R.
Hope, H. T.	Philips, Sir G. R.
Hope, A.	Pigot, Sir R.
Horsman, E.	Pigott, F.
Hotham, Lord.	Pilkington, J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.	price, Sir R.
Hudson, G.	Pugh, D.
Hutt, W.	Pusey, P.
Jackson, W.	Raphael, A.
Jervis, Sir J.	Rawdon, col.
Jones, Capt.	Rendlesham, Lord
keogh, W.	Repton, G. W. J.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Ricardo, J. L.
Ker R.	Ricardo, O.
Knox, col.	Rice, E. R.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Rich, H.
Law, hon. C. E.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Lemon, Sir C.	Romilly, J.
Lennard, T. B.	Rushout,Capt.
Lewis, G. C.	Russell, Lord J.
Lincoln, Earl of	Rutherfurd, A.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Sadlier, J.
Locke, J.	St. Geroge, C.
Lockhart, A. E.	Sandars, G.
Lockhart, W.	Scholfield, W.
Long, W.	Scott, hon. F.
Lushington, C.	Scrope, G. P.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Seaham, Visct.
Macnamara, Maj.	Seymour, Lord
M'Gregor, J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
M'Naghten, Sir E.	Shelburne, Earl of
M'Neill, D.	Sheridan, R. B.
Magan, W. H.	Sibthorp, Col.
Mahon, The O'Gorman	Sidney, Ald.
Marshall, W.	Simeon, J.
Mastin, J.	Slaney, R. A.
Materman, J.	Smith, rt. hon. R.V.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Smith, J. A.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.	Smith, M. T.
mitchell, T. A.	Smyth, J.G.
Mpffatt, G.	Somerset, Capt.
Monsell, W.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Moody, C. A.	Spearman, H. J.
Morgan, O.	Spooner, R.

Stafford, A.	Vivian, J. E.
Stanley, hon. E. J.	Vivian, J. H.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Stanton, W. H.	Ward, H. G.
Staunton, Sir G. T.	Wawn, J.T.
Stephenson, R.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Stuart, Lord D.	West, F. R.
Sutton, J. H. M.	Westhead, J. P.
Talbot, C. R. M.	Williamson, Sir H.
Tenison, E. K.	Wilson, M.
Tennent, R. J.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Thicknesse, R. A.	Wood W. P.
Thompson, Aldm.	Wrightson, W. B.
Thornely, T.	Wyvill, M.
Tollemache, J.	Yorke, H. G. R.
Trelawny, J. S.	Young, Sir J.
Trollope, Sir J.
Turner, G. J.	TELLERS.
Tynte, Col. C. K.	Tufnell, H.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.	Hill, Lord M.

Blewitt, R. J.	Power, Dr.
Bowring, Dr.	Reynolds, J.
Callaghan, D.	Scully, F.
Devereux, J. T.	Smith, J. B.
Fagan, W.	Sullivan, M.
Fox, R. M.	Thompson, Col.
Fox, W. J.	Thompson, G.
Gardner, R.	Wakley, T.
Grattan, H.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Greene, J.	Williams, J.
Hume, J.
Kershaw, J.	TELLERS.
Meagher, T.	O'Connor, F.
Mowatt, F.	O'Connell, J.